Race For A [Political] Cure: Komen Cuts Off Funding For Planned Parenthood

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has previously been ridiculed for its bullying of other charities and its lawsuit against any charity using “for the cure” in its name or advertising. Now it is receiving criticism for cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood affiliates and preventive screening services. It is the first time the organization has cut off such funding based on a new rule involving organizations under investigation by Congress.

The House oversight and investigations subcommittee announced in the fall that it would investigate Planned Parenthood’s funding. The organization often becomes a hot button issue during election periods due to the abortion controversy.

Komen has been targeted in a campaign to defund Planned Parenthood. Last year, it hired a vice president who had previously advocated for the group’s defunding in her run for Georgia governor.

Eric Erickson’s “Red State” is now asking its readers to donate to Komen because they listened. Komen has always been a Dallas organization with strong republican ties. Nancy Brinker, its founder, served in George Bush’s administration. The fact that they hired the Georgia republican politician is not surprising.

So now these morans are going to politicize charity, swell. They have managed to drag politics into so many apolitical corners of the nation I suppose it had to happen sooner or later.

Really though why are these sky pilots even interested in a cure? If God loved you he wouldn’t have given you cancer in the first place. If He did give you cancer he could cure it without help and prayer is free.

If you are too poor to pay for your own mammograms that is prima fascia He doesn’t love you already.

Here’s an excerpt from The Atlantic article that helps explain why some right-wingers hate Planned Parenthood and want to have it investigated and defunded:

“The money provided by Susan G. Komen for the Cure went to just a fraction — about 19 according to one report — of Planned Parenthood’s more than 85 affiliates. And it was all — roughly $680,000 last year and $580,000 the year before that — used for breast-cancer screening and other breast-health services for low-income, uninsured, and under-insured women.”

Komen has gone after other cancer orgs that simply use pink in their ads. The American Cancer Society has long provided subsidies to people with cancer who need help with treatment. PP is reportedly planning to develop a cancer screening fund. Appealing to the “good” that Komen does as a defense seems to fall short. Instead this should shine a light on who they really are and what they stand for.

It appears that under Karen Handel’s leadership, the Komen Foundation has rather quickly adopted the Tea Party ideology. I also suspect that Ms. Handel will use her position as a launching pad for other political activities. The only sensible response is to redirect donations to non-political charities.

October is fast approaching, with its annual deluge of pink ribbons and cause marketing campaigns that leverage emotions surrounding breast cancer to sell products. In past years, PRWatch has reported on questionable “pinkwashed” products like buckets of fried fast food, cringeworthy “I Heart Boobies” bracelets marketed to teenagers, and even a pink “breast cancer awareness” Smith and Wesson handgun.

This year, the Susan G. Komen Foundation — the nonprofit organization that created the corporate phenomenon of pinkwashing — is hawking its own highly questionable pinkwashed product: a perfume called “Promise Me” that retails for $59.00 a bottle and reportedly contains chemicals, some of which are not listed on the label, that are a suspected hormone disruptor, a known neurotoxin and an anticoagulant banned for use in human food, respectively. Breast Cancer Action, a grassroots organization that exposes the role of corporations in cancer “awareness” campaigns, points out that some of the chemicals in Komen’s “Promise Me” perfume are categorized either as toxic and hazardous, have not been evaluated adequately for human safety, or are known to have negative health effects. One of them is galaxolide, a synthetic musk that bioaccumulates in fat tissue and is suspected to be a hormone disruptor. Galaxolide can be detected in blood, breast milk and newborns. Another is toluene, a petroleum-based solvent and neurotoxin with known negative health effects (pdf), according to theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Toluene is banned by the International Fragrance Association. A third chemical of concern is coumarin, an anticoagulant initially marketed as a pesticide against rodents, and and additive the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned as a human food additive decades ago. Moreover, the author of a breast cancer blog called Uneasy Pink calculated, based on Susan G. Komen’s budgetary profile, that after overhead, packaging and marketing, only $1.51, or just 3 percent of Promise Me’s $59.00 retail price will actually go to funding breast cancer research.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has heard the concerns about its perfume brand and says it is taking steps to reformulate the perfume “to remove any doubt about the ingredients.” But while they are reformulating it, the original product is still being sold in stores and online. Breast Cancer Action has issued an action alert on their Think Before You Pink blog urging people to ask Susan G. Komen for the Cure to stop pinkwashing and recall its remaining “Promise Me” perfume immediately.

Maybe the fracturing of the US healthcare system is a good thing…we already have in place an infrastucture to provide basic healthcare to everyone….and it already is up and running….it’s called the VA . Now that the big name for profits and the ‘charities’ are so determined to provide the anti-thesis of what the American people need, it is a golden opportunity to tweak and expand the VA system to completely deprofitize healthcare at the top get back to the actual work of PROVIDING real, tangible, effective and results based HEALTHCARE and EDUCATION to ALL of the citizens and those who they drag here to do thier work for them… Cut all the politics, carpetbaggers and swinging door bill-fillers right out of the equation…. :)

I don’t see this as a big deal. People who support PP and what it does are free to lobby Komen, to donate directly to PP to achieve their aims, or to arrange a boycott of donations to Komen.

I acknowledge that I am working under the assumption that Komen will take the money and use it to fund others that have goals Komen agrees with. As a corollary, the boycott Komen approach (which is effectively espoused in a comment above) strikes me as “cutting off the nose” for anyone who believes that Komen’s work is a benefit to women’s health.

This charity is rated as very poor in actual giving verses use of donations for it’s intended purpose. It’s good to expose what they are doing. If people believe this is the correct thing for Komen to do and don’t mind funding extravagant administrative expenses, they should give to the foundation. If people believe this is wrong and further do not wish to fund extravagant administrative expenses, they should stop giving them money and tell them in no uncertain terms, why they are withdrawing their donations.

This is exactly what people need to do in general. The system is working here! Transparency gives people the information they need to either fund or quit supporting actions they either agree or don’t agree with. I my case I plan to sign the petition and give them a call! I consider their actionss sleazy!!!

That Lord Acton knew a thing or two about powerful people and organizations.

Here’s the full quote:

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

The crazies never give up. Wherever there is some money to be scammed these people will have a booth and a bullhorn. They’ve moved on from churches (no longer very profitable due to falling membership numbers) to healthcare charities. Probably the reason they fought so hard against healthcare reform in the first place.

Stop donating to the crazies … it only encourages them. Once the money dries up, they’ll go away.

For once, I agree with you! Clearly they are supporting a really bad candidate. You can’t stop people from supporting bad candidates. It is their right.

What people who don’t support a bad candidate and a crappy charity can do is withdraw money, time and any other support to this charity and let them know why we are doing this. This sends a strong message the their actions are wrong and we will oppose them in no uncertain terms!

The McCarthy age is back, do not fund anyone or anything that has ties to what we are investigating. Okay we will not fight, even when what we are defunding does exactly what the Komen foundation was, to my understanding, help to fight breast cancer, which, I assume, women being able to get affordable screening, which PP does.
I imagine Susan G, Komen would be rollinig over in her grave that this is what the good she wanted has turned into.

[…] just received an email from Planned Parenthood, but you can read essentially the same news on Jonathan Turley’s site: the Susan G. Komen foundation, a group that heretofore has been generous in its efforts to promote […]

Maybe it’s time for an “investigation” of the Komen Foundation, with its partisan politics and poor ratio of donations to charitable use. Following their own logic, they should then refuse to accept any further donations…. They should not ask any less of their donors than they do of themselves.

WOOSTY
I wish it would be so.
Carol,
why not adopt some marker, a ubiqutous (in terms of systems) but seldom used smiley to mark beginning and end of irony, sarcasm, etc.?
Only problem it has to be key-accessible on most systems. It could spread.
Great ideas end in small disasters. I said that.

Idealist707, always jealous of the folks who can do the little yellow smiley. Don’t know where they get it (unless from the downloadable emoticons which messes up my already messed up and way overworked computer. ) Guess I could just do my ((*_*))

are the days and times of America getting sadder and sadder? I never really liked the color pink, now it is more unattractive to me than ever. No Donations, no support, no participation and loud response to the idiocy of this decision. redirect all planned contributions to SGK to Planned Parenthood and tell them both why.

Excerpt:
Susan G. Komen for the Cure says there wasn’t anything political about its decision to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood.

But in Washington, every decision is political — and now the cancer-fighting organization may have turned itself from a “safe” charity into just another political lightning rod.

It may have ruined its fundraising, too, as its Facebook page filled up with messages from Planned Parenthood supporters promising they’ll never give a dime to the charity again.

“They pretty much cut their fundraising support in half. I don’t think they meant to make a huge political statement, but it was extremely naïve of them to think this wasn’t hyper-political,” said Kivi Leroux Miller, an expert in nonprofit communication strategies.

“They have dove head first into the abortion debate — in fact, they fell into the pool — and whoever is doing their communications doesn’t know how to swim,” Miller said.

Excerpt:
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure denied funding for breast cancer screenings to Planned Parenthood today, in an anti-abortion frenzy designed to hurt the women’s health provider. The effect was a glancing blow. In the past 24 hours, 6,000 donors have delivered $400,000 to Planned Parenthood, almost half of the annual donation from Susan G. Komen. Obviously, Komen provided an annual donation, and this is a one-time outpouring in reaction. So it will hurt Planned Parenthood. But they also gained a lot of allies and awareness from this exchange.

Wow … I was gone all afternoon and just now sat down to check my email. 68 emails from people and organizations all telling me to donate to Planned Parenthood and all complaining about this latest Taliban/Teabagger move. (There was even an email from the young man who walked my dog … his mom just died from breast cancer.)

I donate to Planned Parenthood on an annual basis but decided to give some extra now. As for all those Susan G. Komen for the Cure people … there is no cure for the political cancer growing within your organization.

Excerpt:
Yesterday, America’s most well-known breast cancer organization Susan G. Komen succumbed to right-wing pressure and ended its partnership with Planned Parenthood, pulling around $600,000 in grants that allow the women’s health organization to provide breast cancer exams for low-income women. Today on the House floor, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) — a “big booster” for the foundation and a participant in its iconic Race for the Cure event — announced that she would no longer support the organization over it’s decision.

Noting that the foundation based their decision to sever ties on anti-choice advocate Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) “spurious congressional investigation” into Planned Parenthood, Speier blasted Komen for falling into the trap of a “political sandbox.” “A hearing has never been held,” she noted. “I guess it means that Susan G. Komen has become a 501(d)(4), because no longer do they want to be providing nonprofits, they want to become a political advocacy group,” she said.

Denying Planned Parenthood grants to make breast cancer screenings available to low-income women makes no sense whatsoever if the Komen Foundation’s mission is actually fighting breast cancer. How does refusing to fund breast cancer screenings further that mission? Breast cancer screening has absolutely nothing to do with abortion; the foundation’s entire premise for this move is nonsensical.

SDJ
maybe they reasoned it out that it they save a woman from breast cancer, then she could go on and eventually have an abortioo……..or something like that.
Naw, it just the nazis taking over the country, step by step.
What would they otherwise do with all the nuts they produce, like the former Georgia governor, who is a woman, it is claimed…..!

I wish to present factual information to counter your Manichean worldview that Democratic women are pro-choice and Republican women are anti-choice. It seems to fit your consistent stand that Republicans are evil doers and Democrats are the good people of the earth.

Further I am truly disturbed by Blouise comparing Republican women to cancer cells. We have seen historically and cross culturally that such thinking dehumanizes other people and allows one group of people to treat another group of people in very bad ways. I am not saying that you would do this Blouise, but the language is important because it is a form of dehumanization towards women who are Republicans.

If you will do a quick google search you will find several anti-choice groups specifically for Democratic women. One such is: Democrats for Personhood of America. Now to the Republican side. In addition to Republicans for Choice there is even a PAC devoted to helping keep abortion safe and legal.

If we truly want to solve the problems which face women, we need to make allies, not enemies. The belief that there are no pro-choice women in the republican party is false. There are allies there. The belief that Democratic women can be counted on to be pro-choice is also false. The idea that Republican women (right wing or otherwise) may be compared to cancer cells is a real thought mistake and creates a dehumanization of another group of human beings.

Excerpt:
Remember when anti-choicers got LifeWay Christian Resources to pull its pink-covered Here’s Hope Breast Cancer Bibles from Walmart and other stores because one dollar of every sale went to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation? The antis were upset that the wealthy and influential breast-cancer charity made grants to Planned Parenthood for breast exams and mammograms for low-income women. And remember when Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, told his flock to stop raising money for Komen because someday in the future it might endorse stem cell research? Crazy, right?

The anti-choice movement can be so clumsy, and so weird, we forget that it is also smart and strategic and busy busy busy. Because while you were shaking your head over pink Bibles and stem-cell futurology, Komen was hiring Karen Handel as senior vice president for public policy. Handel is not your typical philanthropy administrator. She is a Republican pol, a former Georgia secretary of state, who ran in the 2010 gubernatorial primary, with endorsements from Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and anti-immigrant finger-pointing Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. At that time she described herself as “staunchly and unequivocally pro-life,” opposed to stem cell research and a fan of crisis pregnancy centers—places that have repeatedly been shown to use scare tactics and misinformation to dissuade women from seeking abortions. She vowed to eliminate from the state budget pass-through grants to Planned Parenthood for breast and cervical cancer screenings. Interestingly, she had previously supported these grants, using the exact arguments defenders of Komen’s PP grants are making now: PP is the only organization capable of doing the work—reaching low-income women, for whom the PP clinic is often the only medical care they get—and the grant money does not fund abortions. Handel’s turnaround shows you how quickly the anti-choicers have claimed formerly neutral turf: in only a few years a relationship deemed normal and good—in Georgia!—and the only existing way of providing needed services was branded with the mark of the beast.

Planned Parenthood says Komen grants totaled around $680,000 in 2011 and $580,000 the year before, accounting for around 170,000 of the 4 million breast exams it has given in the last five years. It’s pretty shocking that Komen would deprive of services women it has itself admitted have no other way of getting them. As Jodi Jacobson reports on RH Reality Check, in 2011 Komen itself acknowledged PP’s essential role in breast care:

While Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood.”

The statement continued:

These facilities serve rural women, poor women, Native American women, women of color, and the un- and under-insured. As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.

As long as there is a need for health care for these women, Komen Affiliates will continue to fund the facilities that meet that need.

I will respectfully decline to argue with you about what I write on this blog since it is clear to me that you often have difficulty understanding what I write. I will say to claim I have made any statements remotely like comparing Republican women to cancer cells is just false.

I see I didn’t answer all your fact based questions. Here is a statement for Republicans for pro-choice. You don’t hear many things the way our news is censored. People aren’t being quiet, you just don’t get a chance to hear them, just as you rarely get a chance to hear actual progressive voices on the left.

“PRO-CHOICE VICTORY IN MISSISSIPPI
On November 8, 2011 one of the most radical anti-choice bills ever introduced went down to overwhelming defeat after months of rallying pro-choice voters to stand up for women’s right to choose.

The so called “Personhood Initiative” is the newest organized anti-choice assault on women. But with many groups working together the pro-choice movement kept its record intact of defeating EVERY single anti-choice initiative our opposition has come up with.

RFC Chair, Ann Stone, spent weeks on the phone calling independents, RFC donors, moderate voters and any names of individuals who claimed they were undecided on this controversial bill.

RFC sent out thousands of letters urging not only pro-choice and mixed -hoice voters to make sure they got to the polls — but also sounded the alarm that if this bill passed — it would set a very dangerous precedent that other anti-choice states would soon follow.”

Jill, I have a close friend that lobbies for Planned Parenthood. Things have changed in the state legislatures. Pro-choice republicans are few and far between. The party platform is anti-choice and anti-woman, and it is becoming increasingly so.

“Komen’s absolutely a political organization, and one of their most recent political moves was to hire as it’s Vice President of Communications one Karen Handel, a Sarah Palin-endorsed, rabidly anti-choice failed gubernatorial candidate from Georgia. Even though the services that Komen grants support at Planned Parenthood are breast exams for poor women, Handel was vocally in favor of defunding the organization as a candidate. In addition, Komen’s founderNancy Brinker was a major donor to George W. Bush”

I have these feelings from personal life experiences….I do not believe that they should be able decry moral issues and then hide behind a grand tax scheme system in place and then Order you to do or not do….I think this blurs the true Separation of Church and State…

on a side note I saw Nancy Brinker on TV this morning…She did not look too happy…..

*******************
What really happened seems clear: Komen bowed to political pressure. Until quite recently, Planned Parenthood wasn’t controversial among Republicans. It had a long history of conservative backing—Dwight Eisenhower once co-chaired the Planned Parenthood Federation along with Harry Truman, and Barry Goldwater championed it. It’s not surprising that Ann Romney once donated to the organization; lots of Republican women did. And pro-choice Republican women like Brinker were fairly common—even Laura Bush said she backed Roe v. Wade.
******************

As the Republican Party’s stance toward Planned Parenthood has changed, so has Komen’s. In April, it hired Karen Handel as its new senior vice president of public policy. In 2010, when Handel ran, unsuccessfully, for the Georgia Republican gubernatorial nomination, she campaigned against abortion and Planned Parenthood—and won Sarah Palin’s endorsement. Meanwhile, other Republicans have put pressure on Brinker. David Vitter, the Louisiana Republican senator whose career as a family values champion has somehow survived multiple prostitution scandals, told Newsmax that he wrote her a letter in May “urging her to take this step.” There was probably no way Komen could maintain links to both Planned Parenthood and the GOP.

Just got a reminder notice form the Breast Cancer Click. com click site (where each click helps raise money for mammograms, The subject line read :We’re not Komen, please keep clicking to provide FREE mammograms!
Text in part in big letters – We are not affiliated with the Susan G, Koman foundation.
Koman must be proud of itself.

I’m with you about the dangers of falling for the dehumanization pitfall.

I think Michael Steele said cogently;

Two wings, same bird, same shit.

Now when do we forget party labels and go back to the one per cent concept.? Or RWA’s vs non’s?

Sure there are party differences. But we have blue dog democrats too.
And the solid south was in fact solid Democratic once, until Lyndon betrayed them, in their eyes. It’s power, not ideology—-although it is the latter they con us with. BS.

It’s the biological imperative of life. Expand and recreate, or die.
Just with a little human trappings over it.

And the most populous species is not guaranteed the victory. But check evolution biology for details.

idealist, While blue dogs vote the wrong way on a variety of things, they are not the ones conducting the war on women. Solid red republicans are. You should see what Perry and the republican legislature passed in Texas.

Swathmoremom
Va. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/1/senate-passes-mandate-ultrasounds-abortion/
only repub against, 2 dems for.
In addition, they are working to end abortion services: “Virginia lawmakers, too, are proposing their share of abortion bills this year, including a “fetal pain” measure. The state also approved temporary regulations last year to regulate abortion clinics like hospitals, and a public comment period is currently under way for developing permanent ones.”

We are at war, primarily with republicans who want smaller government and regs unless it allows them access to the inside of a woman’s body.

Are there legal issues here? Komen operates as a 501c3 tax-exempt organization which does carry some restrictions on political/religious advocacy. I know they’ve framed this as an internal policy issue, but they are, in fact, violating their mission (for which they were granted tax-exempt status) with their ‘new’ policy.

There are also issues related to the duties of nonprofit corps, specifically the ‘duty of care’ and the ‘duty of loyalty.’ Komen’s egregious unforced errors and PR debacles directly threaten the org and demonstrate an inability or unwillingness on the part of the board to anticipate and mitigate threats. Isn’t that a dereliction of the duty of care? As a nonprofit executive (of a much, much smaller org), I am actually stunned by how thoughtless and ill-conceived many of their policies and ‘initiatives’ are. This is a group entrusted with billions in public funds. It’s really mind-boggling.

The duty of loyalty requires that board members ALWAYS and without exception put the interests of the organization ahead of their own. Isn’t allowing the political/religious agenda of individual board members a clear conflict of interest? Especially when it directly violates your mission statement?

Not sure if there are any remedies or who would have standing to sue–maybe donors who feel they were ‘baited and switched’ or who feel frivolous brand lawsuits are a misuse of donations–but one would think the IRS might be taking a second look at their status given some of their more bone-headed recent public moves?

It seems most who posted on here are angry at this decision. I support Komen in their decision. They took a stand to not support an organization that gives free or low cost screenings for breast cancer through the front door that is also killing millions of babies out the back door.

It is their decision to not support PP. And it’s your decision where you want to put your money. That is the wonderful thing about living in the good ol US of A:) We have the ability to support whomever believes how we believe.

It works both ways. You often paint the left with a broad brush stroke.

I’ve never heard of Democrats for Personhood of America. Can you provide some information on the group? I try to keep up with the subject of the current war on women.

I’m sure there are Republican women who are pro-choice–but they appear to choose to remain silent.

*****

You replied:

I will respectfully decline to argue with you about what I write on this blog since it is clear to me that you often have difficulty understanding what I write. I will say to claim I have made any statements remotely like comparing Republican women to cancer cells is just false.

I don’t think I have difficulty understanding what you write. I didn’t imply that your comment was akin to comparing people to cancer cells.

I do believe there are Republican women who are pro-choice. I also know there are Democrats who are anti-choice. Did I suggest that there are no Democrats who are pro-life/anti-choice?

*****

In your comment to Swarthmore mom and Blouise, you wrote:

If you will do a quick google search you will find several anti-choice groups specifically for Democratic women. One such is: Democrats for Personhood of America.

*****

I asked if you could provide information on Democrats for Personhood of America. I put that term in quotes and did a google search. The only thing that came up was this Turley Blawg post.

*****

A week or two ago on another thread you mentioned Chris Hedges and talked about how the left had sold out. I do believe some Democrats and liberals make a lot of excuses for President Obama and/or refuse to criticize him. I noted in a response to your comment the names of some people on the left who have criticized Obama and/or remained true to their principles. I asked that everyone on the left not be painted with the same broad brush. I think it best to call out those particular people that we believe have sold out and not just suggest it is everyone on the left.

SwM,
I don’t have it in front of me. I was just pointing out that both sides ultimately play the same power game. They just wave different slogans.
While that may seem excessive, there are those inclined and capable of defending that position. And seeing the continuation of Bush tactics by Obama, the he is the Democratic leader……yes. And is responsible.

I said Blue dogs hardly merited a nod of approval. They opposed Obamacare, and took campaign or caucus monies from the insurance companies. Don’t have the link, but these are figures they ware required to declare. ( a minor point, seems to be over 200 caucuses registered)

IMHO, the Republicans have become so offensive and blatant in their declared goals, and sneak tactics that it is just as well to knee jerk react or to ignore them—–which is my privilege. I prefer to spend my time agitating for my point of view.

With 20,000 letters from us per day, the odds are little that you read these lines.
Hopefully many others write you with the same message; and some staff does a status and trend summary for you.

My issue as many times before: the deteriorating situation regarding our civil rights.

Today it was a no-knock entry into a wrong address. Purportedly after two years of investigation. The photo and video recalling the event by the mother of a baby, etc.is not only heart-wrenchíng but shames us all. If this link gets to you or your staff, skip the tale; you’ve heard it many times before.
Note instead the words and tones used by the commenters. They are armed and prepared to fire without waiting when someone starts chainsawing their door.

Americans are armed. Which the Arabs are not. And now our frustration is growing. This is in no way intended as a threat.
Rather wishing you to be advised of what could become a dangerous situation.

As yet, while shocked, the public does not seem to be cowed yet by these questionable FBI etc practices.

Good luck in hopefully reversing this trend.
All the combat mentality from Iraq and Afghanistan is malplaced and dangerous ultimately here in our police in the USA.

The war on drugs is a mistake, as is the one on terrorism. But declaring this country to be a war zone is incredible in my opinion.

Excerpt:
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation caved to right-wing pressure and cut ties with Planned Parenthood. Their rationale was simple: Komen had new rules preventing it from funding any organization under investigation, so a spurious congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood led by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) prohibited Komen from continuing to fund breast exams through Planned Parenthood for women who otherwise wouldn’t receive them.

But now, new reporting from the Atlantic reveals that Komen adopted the new guidelines to cut off Planned Parenthood. That effort was led by Komen President Elizabeth Thompson, who knew that Planned Parenthood was the only group that would be affected by the rule, and Karen Handel, Komen’s new senior vice president for public policy.

Excerpt:
Sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process said recent policies were adopted specifically to cut funding to Planned Parenthood.

Update: Mollie Williams, the Komen official who resigned to protest the organization’s decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood, sent me a statement, which is reprinted in full at the end of this post.

An entirely avoidable, and deeply regrettable, controversy has been raging this week over the decision by the (formerly highly esteemed) Susan G. Komen For the Cure foundation, the world’s leading breast-cancer research advocacy group, to cut its support for Planned Parenthood, which used Komen dollars (about $600,000 annually) to pay for breast-screening exams for poor people. (The Atlantic’s Nicholas Jackson has an excellent summary of the controversy so far.)

Komen, the marketing juggernaut that brought the world the ubiquitous pink ribbon campaign, says it cut-off Planned Parenthood because of a newly adopted foundation rule prohibiting it from funding any group that is under formal investigation by a government body. (Planned Parenthood is being investigated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, an anti-abortion Florida Republican, who says he is trying to learn if the group spent public money to provide abortions.)

But three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut-off Planned Parenthood. (Komen gives out grants to roughly 2,000 organizations, and the new “no-investigations” rule applies to only one so far.) The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization’s new senior vice-president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion and who has said that since she is “pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.” (The Komen grants to Planned Parenthood did not pay for abortion or contraception services, only cancer detection, according to all parties involved.) I’ve tried to reach Handel for comment, and will update this post if I speak with her.

idealist, I was specifically talking about the gop war on women. Obama appointed two female pro-choice supreme court justices. Bush appointed two male anti-abortion justices. Obama has not continued the Bush policies in this area. Like I said Planned Parenthood and NARAL are all in for him. Every blue dog democrat in the Texas House voted against the sonogram bill. Every republican voted for it.

idealist, I worked for a health and welfare legislative committee in the eighties. We dealt with women’s health issues all the time. The lines were not clearly drawn on the abortion issue as they are now. At that time there were pro-choice republicans that represented affluent protestant areas. George Pillsbury was one of them. There were, also, pro-life catholic legislators from working class neighborhoods .Kucinich used to be anti-abortion. Evangelicals were not involved yet. That all changed when the republican party adopted an anti-choice platform, and the democrats did the opposite.

The band, which has been active about fundraising for breast cancer since keyboardist Jenny Conlee’s bout with the disease, has decided to pull its support from Susan G. Komen For the Cure after that group made a clearly politicized decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood’s breast health work. Now, they’ll send the money they make from selling their Team Jenny t-shirts directly to Planned Parenthood’s Breast Health Emergency Fund. They’re not the only indie band taking action. The Mountain Goats, who are particularly politically active, warned their Twitter followers that “Pro-choice musicians, know that Komen for the Cure is now on the side of the bad guys.”

What’s particularly nice about the Decemberists’ action is that they’re not withdrawing the fight—they’re just giving their money to a direct service provider instead. Susan G. Komen for the Cure has a long list of bipartisan celebrity supporters, some of whom—like Neil Patrick Harris and Cynthia Nixon—have bigger national platforms than an indie band. Let’s hope some of them make the same decision, and help make it so Planned Parenthood is better off after losing Susan G. Komen’s support than they were before.

I appreciate the work that Susan G. Komen has done to make breast cancer a publicly discussable disease. But I also think that charities should have viable competitors to keep them honest. And for those of us who want a comprehensive approach to women’s health, and who want to give to a program that’s more about direct service and less about cancer culture and products, a reexamination of Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a healthy debate to be having and a spur to thoughtful philanthropy. It’s just too bad that Susan G. Komen for a Cure had to cut off aid to the women who need it most to get the conversation started.

“Dr. Kathy Plesser, a Manhattan radiologist on the medical advisory board of Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s New York chapter, said she plans to resign from her position unless Komen reverses its decision to pull grant money from Planned Parenthood.

“I’m a physician and my interest is women’s health, and I am disturbed by Komen’s decision because I am a very strong advocate for serving under-served women,” Plesser told The Huffington Post. “Eliminating this funding will mean there’s no place for these women to go. Where are these women to go to have a mammography? Do they not deserve to have mammography?”

With her decision, Plesser joins Komen’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, and the executive director of Komen’s Los Angeles County chapter, Deb Anthony, both of whom also resigned in protest.”

Excerpt:
As the firestorm intensified Thursday over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s yanking of Planned Parenthood funds, it was MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell who cut to the core of a faceless clash over money and policy by speaking personally of her own battle with breast cancer.

Interviewing Komen founder Nancy Brinker, Mitchell, who announced in September that she had been diagnosed with the disease, said she was “expressing the anger of a lot of people” about the organization’s controversial decision to end a grant to Planned Parenthood.

“I have been very identified [as] an outspoken supporter and participant in the races over the years, long before I myself ended up being diagnosed with breast cancer, so I just wanted to put that out there,” Mitchell told Brinker as they sat across a table from each other in the studio. “We’ve known each other a long time. But I come to you today expressing the anger of a lot of people, channeling through them, you see it on Twitter, you see it everywhere.”

Mitchell’s personal remarks came during a day in which the Komen organization found itself under attack on several fronts. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and dozens of other lawmakers denounced the group, a top official of the foundation reportedly resigned in protest, and a key sponsor of the “Race for the Cure” pulled out. And supporters of Planned Parenthood rallied to the group’s defense, donating over $600,000 in one day – and that doesn’t include $250,000 pledged by billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Meanwhile, Brinker launched a media offensive to try to contain the growing fallout.

Mitchell began the interview with Brinker, her first since the controversy erupted earlier this week, by saying, “I have to tell you, this is shocking to a lot of your long-time supporters” and describing an encounter she had with a woman at the gym earlier in the day.

“I had not met her before, a gray-haired woman, probably in her 60s. She was wearing a gray T-shirt. And she said, ‘Look at my shirt. It’s inside out. I put it on by accident today. I’m not going to wear it anymore. I’ve torn the label out. It’s a Komen T-shirt,’” Mitchell told Brinker. “These are long-time supporters who’ve run with you and supported you, financially and otherwise. So they’re asking how could this have taken place?”

When Brinker responsed by saying that there had been a serious “mischaracterization” of what happened with Planned Parenthood, Mitchell interrupted.

She said long-time supporters of the organization were tracing the Komen’s decision back to the hiring of senior vice president of public policy Karen Handel, who has been vocal about her pro-life stance and opposition to the mission of Planned Parenthood.

Karen Handel proudly re-Tweeted a truly ugly post by someone named Jade Morey. Sickening. She has since pulled it due to the negative backlash, but thanks to the miracle of the Internet, several people got screengrabs before it disappeared. Brainwrap has the story and the screengrab:

In addition to pulling funds from Planned Parenthood for The Susan G. Komen Foundation also decided to stop funding embryonic stem cell research centers making it fully transparent the organization has evolved from non-political non-profit to a partisan advocacy organization.

That means the loss of $3.75 million to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University. That’s a loss of nearly $12 million dollars in research money to eradicate breast cancer this year alone.

This is a new position for the organization which had previously supported all sorts of scientific research targeted at finding a cure for breast cancer and saving women’s lives. It’s new position is that the organization will categorically no longer support any embryonic stem cell research.

Excerpt:
Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which recently announced that it is ending grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening because of a controversial investigation launched by an anti-abortion Republican congressman, currently funds cancer research at the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center to the tune of $7.5 million. Like Planned Parenthood, Penn State is currently the subject of a federal government investigation, and like the Planned Parenthood grant, the Penn State grant appears to violate a new internal rule at Komen that bans grants to organizations that are under investigation by federal, state, or local governments. But so far, only the Planned Parenthood grants appear to have been cancelled.

An internal Komen memo written by President Elizabeth Thompson and obtained by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic states that if “an applicant or its affiliates” is under investigation “for financial or administrative improprieties by local, state or federal authorities,” then “the applicant will be ineligible to receive a grant.” Penn State, the Pennsylvania university that the Hershey center is affiliated with, is currently under investigation by the federal government over the sexual assault scandal involving former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who has been indicted on multiple counts of sexual abuse of children. In 2008, the Komen foundation awarded a five-year, $7.5 million grant to the Hershey center to study treatments that could reduce the risk of breast cancer.

Under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, university officials are required to “issue a timely warning if a reported crime represents a threat to the campus community.” The Department of Education announced that it was investigating Penn State over possible Clery Act violations last November, and a Penn State spokesperson told Mother Jones that the investigation is ongoing. The Komen foundation has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Excerpt:
“I’m sad,” said Dr. Susan Love, president of the Santa Monica-based Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, which released a statement decrying the Komen move. “Whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, it doesn’t really matter because it’s a separate issue. What Planned Parenthood is doing is giving [referrals for] mammograms and [providing] breast exams — helping women who don’t have access to that care.”

Love’s sister-in-law, Tina, 45, visited Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening five years ago. Worried about a suspicious breast lump, but without health insurance, the Santa Barbara-based independent filmmaker had ignored the mass until it grew larger. The lump turned out to be cancerous.

Tina Love was treated and is now cancer-free. She said she might never have caught the cancer at an early stage had Planned Parenthood services not been available.

Last night, the Komen web site was hacked. Somebody did a screen grab and it is in this comment by a Daily Kos user. I especially like the “upside down” ribbon object at the bottom….rather appropriate, if anyone cares to ask me.

Excerpt:
Komen maintains that its decision was not politically motivated — a spokesperson says that the move was a result of the breast-cancer charity’s new rule barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by the local, state, or federal government. But, as Fox News reports, out of the 200,000 or so groups to which Komen awards grants, only Planned Parenthood has been affected by the new rule. And others note that, given Komen’s 2011 statement lauding Planned Parenthood for its service to poor, uninsured, and underinsured women, politics may be the only reason to cut funding now.

“While Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood,” the March 2011 statement read. “These facilities serve rural women, poor women, Native American women, women of color, and the un- and under-insured. As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.”

I just left comments at the FB Susan G, Komen site, using some of the cites here. Thanks.
.https://www.facebook.com/groups/111961795481256/358102094200557/#!/susangkomenforthecure
I see that they are using the tactics of the right and Fox news, stating lies or using doublespeak in hopes the lie repeated long enough will be the truth.
(And given that only 3% of their work is abortion services, none paid for by the government, as mandated by law, using abortion as a reason to go after PP is plain folly. Those who say PP is bad because of that show their disdain for the living women who, without PP, would not have access to cancer screening, STD education, and other female health care issues. And in the end when poor women come to the hospital and clinics later in their diseases it costs us, the taxpayer more then if they had gone to PP and been dx’ed early. (And more of them die who would not have done so if their diseases caught early.).

You know best, SwM.Great links. Thanks.
There must have been many of note who asked themselves where do I stand, and is this a road we want to travel (ie poiiticization).

And a thanks to the one who posted the U-link to “Pink Ribbon” treailer.
As one of the articles linked from here points out, they have damaged their brand forever. The examiation of the annual expenses (not including personnel and admin) is roughly divided between research and product and awareness promotion.

I’m not a woman, I support women. But can’t really judge it all.
Can only note again that the Republicans, the 1%, the corporations, and even Obama must be impressed by what women and the net can do in so short a time.
Storm on!!!

Komen says they will allow @PPact to apply for future grants. NOT that they’ll continue grants.

Which appears to be true — current grants will be funded, and then Planned Parenthood will be allowed to apply for future grants, but we’ll see if PP continues to be funded. So the wingnuttery may well have been been postponed, not abandoned.

Nal, sure leaves them out but now “the whole world is watching” The benefit of this fandango is that those who just assumed this was a good, reliable, non partisan and trustworthy charity will be taking a much closer look before giving, and after checking on what they are doing with PP.
Hopefully short memories will not be the case now.

Hey, those godless, left-wing libtards are forcing, forcing I tell you, charities to donate to Planned Parenthood! Just like they were planning to kill all god-fearing conservatives through end of life counseling committees in Obamacare. Beware, beware … get to the polls and vote for one or more of our teabaggers and save this nation.

Typical election year strategy in an attempt to ratchet up the crazies on the right and give them an issue to scream about. They’ve exhausted the “family values, gays, witches, abortion, guns” issues so why not breast cancer?

Nal is right in giving us the link in his post at 12:01pm.

They are going to be bangin’ this drum all year as it gets their crazies up and moving and hopefully stompin’ to the polls in righteous indignation over all those poor people gettin’ free help from that commie, godless group of libtards otherwise known as Planned Parenthood.

Libtards are all atheists who support Obama’s wars and abortion and want to take our guns and hate Christmas and want to destroy Wall Street and give everybody free houses and free mammograms and free education and kill us all through secret “end of life” counseling sessions and raise taxes too. And make all our children gay.

Blouise,
you are right that the Right is busy getting the base revved up for the election. Unfortunately for them the base won’t be enough. Unless of course the DOJ doesn’t put an end to the discrimatory voter ID legislation.

Komen seems to be looking for a way to end the controversy while changing little or nothing about their policy and ability to make political decisions. They need to: announce that the funds withheld have been granted (their statement does not do that) and return to the status quo ante in eligibility as a matter of written policy. In order for PP to be deemed ineligible for future funds any prosecutor can start a criminal investigation for fraud saying PP used federal money for abortions, or just make something else up.

If they would go so far as make up rules specifically to cease grants to PP why would one think they would not do so, or something similar, in the future? The leadership is in the hands of fanatics. The organization is now completely untrustworthy IMO as long as the leadership stays.

“Komen caves, kinda, but still refusing to approve Planned Parenthood’s funding next year”
By John Aravosis on 2/03/2012 12:02:00 PM

“The Susan G. Komen foundation caved today. Kinda. They issued a statement apologizing for the mess they created this week when they cut funding for Planned Parenthood breast exams for poor women, seemingly under pressure from far right politicos and anti-choice groups. But Komen’s apology is slightly lacking. And according to their own CEO last night, they still can’t approve future grants from Planned Parenthood. Unless she was lying.”

Komen seems to be looking for a way to end the controversy while changing little or nothing about their policy and ability to make political decisions.
———————————–
I thought they did say they were changing policy? “Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair” ~from Carol Levy’s link: carol levy1, February 3, 2012 at 11:29 am

Republicans know their base and what motivates them. It’s pure emotionalism grounded in willful ignorance and fear. The leadership will sacrifice anything and anyone to get those votes.

All one has to do is look back to 2000 and the spectacle of busloads of D.C. political aides unloading in Florida and beating down the doors in the recount centers trying to buy time for the Supreme Court to move Georgie into the Oval Office. The base loved it.

Obama has given the republicans very little to work with. His family epitomizes “family values” (no wives stumbling drunk down the stairs or calling astrologers … no kids sticking their tongues out at photographers … no brothers selling beer or negotiating pay-offs for political cronies … no hanky-panky in the Oval Office). He stopped the torture the Right so loves but he didn’t prosecute any of their leaders so there’s nothing to bitch about there. He’s still fighting their wars and he got Osama bin Laden so weak on defense doesn’t work for them. He hasn’t put any of their Wall Street/bankers in jail and the economy is improving. He hasn’t raised taxes. All they have left is Healthcare so that’s what they’re using.

Nothing has changed. Of course pointing this out to them is partisanship … ;)

Yes, I know what they say but I’m considering the source and that makes my posting biased. I know what “conclusive” means in law but I suspect that a fanatic with a political agenda could bend that definition a bit to make it fit their desire. How about a finding that some state or municipality has made that medical waste is being improperly disposed of by PP and a fine for same? I don’t trust the motive for the new criterion. If they were serious and not targeting PP then the grant of money for Penn. State would have been likely denied since affiliates are factored into the determination. (Affiliates may be the improper word- I need to find the exact word but it covers sub-sets of the parent organization.)

I just don’t trust them since they have moved against donations to organizations involved with stem-cell research and PP. Doing away with the language entirely would be appropriate IMO. They are taking a political position and that just devastates their credibility for me.

Excerpt:
Though Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced a reversal of its decision to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, the language of the statement suggests the foundation could still refuse to fund the women’s health care provider in the future.

After a two-day hailstorm of criticism — during which Planned Parenthood raised $3 million, according to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America — Komen announced on Friday that it would abandon a plan to cut off grant funding for breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood. “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” Komen said in a statement.

“The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen,” the statement said. “We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.”

The statement amounted to a pretty unequivocal reversal of the explanation for the cuts Komen had given earlier in the week. At first, Komen cited a policy to cut funding for any organization under investigation by federal, state or local authorities. Since Planned Parenthood is currently under congressional investigation by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Komen said, they decided to terminate the grants.

This explanation didn’t hold much water. For one thing, as Mother Jones pointed out, Komen didn’t make any similar announcements about its $7.5 million in funding for cancer research at Penn State’s Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, seeing as Penn State is currently under federal investigation in connection with the alleged sexual abuse scandal by former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

For another, Karen Handel, Komen’s new senior vice president for public policy, is on the record as opposing Planned Parenthood, and ran for Governor of Georgia in 2010 as a Republican. This sparked a report in the Atlantic from sources within Komen that Handel was behind the decision, and that Komen was was looking for an excuse to cut off Planned Parenthood.

In the latest statement, Komen said it would amend its policy so “that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political,” which excludes what Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Friday referred to as the “sham” investigation by Stearns.

Despite this backtrack, one part of the statement still provides some uncertainty about the future relationship between Komen and Planned Parenthood. Though Komen said it won’t cut current grants to Planned Parenthood and will still preserve Planned Parenthood’s eligibility to apply for future grants, the statement does not say it will necessarily grant them.

“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities,” the statement said.

And Komen board member John Raffaelli indicated to Greg Sargent of the Washington Post that nothing is certain about the future relationship. “It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesn’t go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission,” Raffaelli said. “We’re a humanitarian organization. We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.”

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for George W. Bush and prominent right-wing pundit, was secretly involved in the Komen Foundation’s strategy regarding Planned Parenthood. Fleischer personally interviewed candidates for the position of “Senior Vice President for Communications and External Relations” at Komen last December. According to a source with first-hand knowledge, Fleischer drilled prospective candidates during their interviews on how they would handle the controversy about Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Fleischer’s relationship with Komen and the Planned Parenthood controversy was previously undisclosed. He confirmed to ThinkProgress his recent role in filling a key communication position at Komen. Fleischer stressed, however, another communications firm (Ogilvy PR) was retained by Komen to deal with crisis communications over the last few days and he has not been involved.

In November, Komen advertised for a top level communications position in Roll Call. Promising applicants received a call from Fleischer. The advertisement is no longer posted on the Roll Call website, but a portion is accessible via Google.

According to a source, during at least one interview, Planned Parenthood was a major topic of conversation. Fleischer indicated that he had discussed the Planned Parenthood issue with Komen’s CEO, Nancy Brinker, and that she was at her wits end about how to proceed. Fleischer described himself as a longtime friend of Brinker.

Fleischer confirmed to ThinkProgress that he would receive a fee from Komen when the search is complete. Fleischer did not specify the amount of his fee but said it would be “substantially below the normal placement fee charged by executive search companies” because “they’re a charity I believe in.”

Fleischer’s high-level involvement with Komen further complicates its image as an apolitical cancer charity. Fleischer is a prominent partisan commentator and a longtime critic of Planned Parenthood. In his book, Taking Heat, Fleischer criticized Planned Parenthood as a partisan, ideological organization that receives undeserved positive coverage in the press. In 2001, Fleischer said that the Clinton administration verged too far to the left on family planning efforts because “if Planned Parenthood wanted it, the previous administration favored it.”

“Over the last three days, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Breast Health Fund has received more than $3 million from thousands of people across the country. Every dollar we received for this fund will go directly to breast exams and diagnostic services, as well as breast health outreach and education so that more women can receive this critical care.

Our first priority is to fill any gaps in service in the 19 communities where Komen Foundation grants support Planned Parenthood health centers’ breast care programs. The extraordinary generosity will also allow us to help expand Planned Parenthood breast health services nationwide far beyond what we ever thought possible. Planned Parenthood provides nearly 750,000 clinical breast exams each year at health centers across the country, but we know there are hundreds of thousands of women who need these services but still don’t have access to them. The Planned Parenthood Breast Health Fund will enable us to reach these women and ensure they have access to affordable, quality clinical breast exams.

In short, this outpouring of public support will lead more women to detect breast cancer earlier, and will save more women’s lives. …”

Please note the bold faced quote. My maternal Grandmoter, my Mother, my maternal Aunt, and one niece all died from breast cancer. I have never contributed one dime to Susan G. Komen for the Cure because I research all the charities to which I donate and never support those that spend more on administrative and advertising than they do on the actual charitable goal they profess to support. I have always donated directly to Planned Parenthood and would strongly urge others to do the same.

Although no one likes an ugly fight sometimes you just have to stand up to the GOP war on women. The battles were mean in the seventies and eighties. Some of us fought them. Younger women have taken their rights for granted. Hopefully, they have awakened and will fight those that want to take their rights away. I for one wish republican women would stand up to their party and the GOP platform and fight for reproductive freedom. Something good has come out of this. The light has been shone on all the behind the scene efforts to destroy Planned Parenthood. They will be stronger than ever.

If the GOP obstruction of Obamas’ Administration is evidence that Partisanship is not destroying this country then, I do not know what is proof…Well, heck they even said this….

If he (Obama) can’t get through his agenda when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress….then….I think the issues don’t need refining….

As Mike S and others have said….The only reason to Vote for Obama is the Sct….that is a salient issue…Other than that…I am hoping an Intelligent person runs as a Third party….But the proof already shows that the Intelligent won’t run….Not saying that Obama is not intelligent…but he does not know how to utilize that to the country’s advantage….That is where Bill Clinton differs…

Its Women’s issues to some and its the effective tax rate to others…So they stand in the sand with the line drawn….Take a look at Grover Cleveland….He was a strict Democrat…..He vetoed more legislation than any other president that I am aware of….then right after than T.R. Roosevelt came to be… He took PRIVATE PROPERTY for PUBLIC USE…..and He was a Republican….that handed the fate of the US to Taft then Wilson…then…oh yeah…..I think we had something called a Great Depression…..damn….History does repeat itself….

In my opinion The Susan G Komen Foundation’s blunder in defunding Planned Parenhood is a good thing because it may prompt donors and potential donors to examine other questionable aspects of the foundation. Just because Komen has reversed its decision is no reason that boycotting former donors should reverse theirs.

I read multiple articles and some had links to previous pieces criticising Komen.one of them included the following allegations:-

1/ That Komen is sponsored by large businesses including some in the drug and chemical trades and that their is a risk that the interests of these sponsors affect Komen’s godworks;

2/ That Komen in return for sponsorship allows businesses to place the Komen pink ribbon on their products but the donations from each sale are a very small proportion of the price and some of these products for example Kentucky Fried Chicken are anything but healthy;

3/ Komen has a lobbying arm and donors to Komen truly concerned with women’s health would be horrified at the ends for which it lobbies.For example Komen lobbied against a bill for conducting a scientific investigation into whether chemicals in the environment cause cancer.

In my browsing i followed a link to an article that alledged the precedeing and more. I did not bookmark the article and have not been able to find it again thoughI thought that it was on Talking Points Memo or Alternet. If anyone comes across what might be that article I would appreciate their letting me know. However here is a link to an article at evilslutopia that has some of the same allegations:-

This current controversy has caused people to take another look at some past criticisms of the way that Komen lobbies for and against certain legislation, including questions about what kind of help Komen believes poor women should get to pay for cancer care, and about whether Komen really supports research into potential environmental causes of breast cancer. Here are a couple of excerpts:

In 2000, when I first became a breast cancer activist, one of my first assignments was contacting the senators and members of Congress in my area to encourage their support for the Breast & Cervical Cancer Prevention & Treatment Act. The bill was to provide Medicaid coverage for uninsured women diagnosed through the Breast & Cervical Cancer Prevention & Screening Act, which had been passed several years earlier. IOW, the Treatment Act was necessary because uninsured women were getting no-cost breast cancer diagnosis, but still had no means to pay for treatment.

…Upon calling my GOP senator and speaking with his aide, I was shocked to hear her tell me “Sen.__ can’t sign on as a co-sponsor to the bill because all the breast cancer groups aren’t in agreement on it.” Shocked, I asked her who was opposing it. She told me that Komen opposed the bill. When I asked her why, she explained that Komen felt that treatment for uninsured breast cancer patients should be funded through private donations, like the pink ribbon race. I was speechless, in shock. A phone call to another activist confirmed it was true – Komen was lobbying behind the scenes to kill the bill. A moment later, Sen.__’s aide called me back and begged me not to repeat our conversation to anyone, that she had given me the information by mistake.

…In 2009, Komen lobbied behind the scenes to weaken the health care bill (ACA) as it was being debated in Congress. They hired Hadassah Lieberman, wife of Joe, in an effort to convince Joementum to vote against the Public Option. Komen spent over $1 million in 2008 & 2009, on behind the scenes lobbying related to the health care reform bill, so who knows what else was on their agenda.

…They worked for several years to stall or kill the Breast Cancer & Environmental Research Act. In the end, they eviscerated it by removing new funding for environmental research and substituting a panel to review all research on breast cancer & environment. Using private funds, they recently collaborated with the Institute of Medicine to develop said report. Released last December, it sadly detailed the same old arguments that there’s no evidence of links between environmental toxins and that no further research should be done on the subject since everyone has those toxins in their bodies already. Instead they chose to blame breast cancer patients for getting the disease (more here).[Daily Kos]

…most people would be shocked to find that the Komen Foundation helped block a meaningful Patients Bill of Rights for the women it has purported to serve since the group began in 1982.

Despite proclaiming herself before a 2001 Congressional panel as a “patient advocate for the past 20 years,” demanding access to the best possible medical care for all breast cancer patients, Federal Election Commission records show the Komen Foundation and its allies lobbied against the consumer-friendly version of the Patients Bill of Rights in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Brinker then trumpeted old friend George W. Bush in August 2001 for backing a “strong” Patients’ Bill of Rights, while most patient advocates felt betrayed. [AlterNet – Read the whole thing. Seriously, go. I’ll wait.]

However I recommend that those of you who have the timer ead the full evilslutopia article.. The section on pinkwashing is particularly god.

Perhaps the only answer to information flow is:
Look for the secret money flow. It’s all false.
Can readily believe they found this to be in “their own” interests.
Anything big is always rotten at the core and false, false, false.
We all sell ourselves for money. Some lie about it only.
A true ideaist is a poor person.

Excerpt:
Some cancer survivors and advocates say Susan G. Komen for the Cure will have to work hard to win back supporters, even after the breast cancer organization reversed course on a controversial decision to end grants to Planned Parenthood.

Although some longtime supporters remain loyal, others said feelings of ill will were created by the controversy won’t be easily erased.

“There are many men and women who have completely lost their faith in Komen, and they won’t be back in the future,” said breast cancer survivor Lisa Bonchek Adams, of Darien, Conn., who raised nearly $15,000 for Komen shortly after her diagnosis. Earning back that trust could take “a major overhaul,” said Adams, who says Komen needs to become “more transparent” about its goals and how it operates.

Sunshine — in the form of the Turley blog et als. — is still the best disenfectant for charity scams. You might recall the United Way fisasco of the 1990s and its lavish living President William Aramony who died last year. He only got $500,000.00 per year and the push back was hard … real hard. Let’s see what happens here.

Excerpt:
DALLAS – Nancy Brinker, founder and chief executive of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, took home $417,000 in salary in 2010, according to financial documents posted on the charity’s Website, and paid 50 top executives more than $100,000 each.

What the Dallas-based foundation spent on staff and administrative expenses included $20 million for advertising and promotion, $14 million for “office expenses’’ and more than $14 million for consulting and professional services. Another $7 million was spent on contract labor and $3 million for travel. Komen officials did not immediate return calls and emails seeking comment on Monday morning.

Brinker, who also serves as chairman of Komen’s board of directors, traveled first class on airlines with the explicit permission of the board she chairs.

The expenses are disclosed in financial reports on the charity’s website. Komen operations have been under intense scrutiny since last week when a plan to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood triggered blistering criticism of Komen’s leadership.

Elaine M.1, February 6, 2012 at 11:23 am ~
…..Komen operations have been under intense scrutiny since last week when a plan to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood triggered blistering criticism of Komen’s leadership.
—————————
mmmmm, is that like an ‘investigation’????

“The recent controversy makes Komen the “new Coke of nonprofits,’’ according to Advertising Age, which said Komen’s decision and its rapid reversal “showed how a brand can boomerang from one of the most loved into one of the most reviled in a head-snapping two days.’’

Blouise, Rafflaw, they have been taking political advice for years including taking positions that Congress should not fund studies regarding the possibility that breast cancer has environmental causes. They over-reached this time and it got some publicity. They get a lot of corporate sponsorships and donations, that has (I’m sure) shaped their policies for far longer that the most recent kerfuffle might indicate.

Karen Handel, the former GOP candidate for governor, just announced her resignation as a senior vice president for public policy of Susan G. Komen for the Cure – one week after the breast cancer charity reversed itself on a decision to sever financial ties with Planned Parenthood.

Good riddance. But she’s not the problem, those who approved this disaster, cough – Nancy Brinker – cough, are.

My Tucson contact, who hates the Governor, says that Susan G. was a well-known golfer, of wealthy and well-placed folks there who died in her 30’s.
Brinker got a good consultant who showed how simple ideas (pink ribbons) can be parleyed into a (give me the right word please!!! you know like disgusting con game—-like this republic!!).

naturally like your web-site however you have to take a look at the spelling on several
of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling problems and I find
it very troublesome to tell the reality nevertheless I will
certainly come again again.